Mocha: assertions within promise not working - javascript

So, I'm completely new to mocha, and promises and I was asked to write integration tests, which posts form data to a page, gets an authentication key, and then run tests on the key.
I'm getting the key back properly, which is confirmed by my log statement, but when I run mocha, my test says 0 passing. It doesn't even print out the descriptions for the 'describe' and 'it' statements, implying that they do not work within the promise. Is there away that I can this work, while still giving the assertions access to my authorization key?
require('should');
require('sails');
var Promise = require("promise");
var request = require('request');
describe('Domain Model', function(){
var options = { url:'link',
form:{
username: 'xxxxx#xxxxxx',
password: '0000'
},
timeout: 2000
};
//request auth key
var promise = new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
request.post(options, function(error, response, body){
//body contains the auth key, within a string of JSON
resolve(body);
});
});
//this is where I'm getting lost
promise.then(function(data,test){
var token = (JSON.parse(data))["access_token"];
console.log(token);
describe('Initialize',function(){
it('should be an string', function(){
(token).should.be.type('string');
});
});
});
});


Mocha is not able to find your tests because you're not structuring them correctly. The it() blocks should go immediately within the describe() blocks (and the describe() blocks may be nested within each other as you see fit). If you want to use promises, the promises should go inside the it() blocks, not the other way around. So, as a first pass, the updated code should look something like this (I'm cutting some parts out for brevity):
describe('Domain Model', function(){
var options = { ... };
describe('Initialize',function(){
it('should be an string', function(){
//request auth key
var promise = new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
// ...
});
promise.then(function(data,test){
var token = (JSON.parse(data))["access_token"];
console.log(token);
(token).should.be.type('string');
});
});
});
});
Note that the promise is now contained inside the body of the it(). Mocha should now be able to find your test. However, it won't pass. Why not?
As you probably know, promises are asynchronous. Testing asynchronous code using mocha requires using the done callback - see the guide for more info. Basically, this means the it() block should accept a parameter named done (the name is important!). This done thingy is something that mocha passes in automatically - its presence indicates to mocha that this test contains asynchronous code, and that therefore it has not completed executing until you say so. The way you indicate that your test is done is by executing done, because done is in fact a callback function. You should execute done() at whatever point your test is deemed complete - i.e., at the end of whatever code block is supposed to run last, which in your case is the bottom of the .then() handler for the promise. So, improving upon our last version, the code now looks like this (again, cutting some parts for brevity):
describe('Domain Model', function(){
var options = { ... };
describe('Initialize',function(){
it('should be an string', function(done){
//request auth key
var promise = new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
// ...
});
promise.then(function(data,test){
var token = (JSON.parse(data))["access_token"];
console.log(token);
(token).should.be.type('string');
done();
});
});
});
});
Note that I just added the done parameter to it(), and then I called it at the bottom of the then().
At this point, the code should work, I think... I'm not sure as I'm not able to test it. However, there are a couple more things we could do to improve upon this further.
First, I question your use of promises here. If you had an API for obtaining the access token, then I would opt to have that API return a promise because promises are very convenient for the caller. However, as I'm sure you've noticed, constructing promises can be a bit tedious, and I don't think it adds much value for your code. I would opt to just do this:
describe('Domain Model', function(){
var options = { ... };
describe('Initialize',function(){
it('should be an string', function(done){
//request auth key
request.post(options, function(error, response, body){
//body contains the auth key, within a string of JSON
var token = (JSON.parse(body))["access_token"];
console.log(token);
(token).should.be.type('string');
done();
});
});
});
});
Isn't that so much shorter and sweeter? The code is still asynchronous, so you should still make sure your it() block accepts a done callback, and you should call it when your test has finished.
Now, if you still insist on using promises, then there's one more thing I have to warn you about. What happens if there's an error inside of your .then() handler code? Well, according to the documentation:
If the handler that is called throws an exception then the promise
returned by .then is rejected with that exception.
Do you have a rejection handler for your promise? No. So what does that mean? That means the error will get swallowed up silently. Your test will fail with Error: timeout of 2000ms exceeded, which is because the done handler never got called, but the actual cause of the error won't be shown, and you'll be pulling your hair out trying to figure out what went wrong.
So what can you do? You could use the second parameter to .then() to specify a rejection handler, and in there, you could take advantage of the fact that the done callback that mocha passes in to your test accepts an error argument, so if you call done("something"), your test will fail (which is what we want in this case), and the "something" will be the reason. So here's what that will look like in your case:
describe('Domain Model', function(){
var options = { ... };
describe('Initialize',function(){
it('should be an string', function(done){
//request auth key
var promise = new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
// ...
});
promise.then(function(data){
var token = (JSON.parse(data))["access_token"];
console.log(token);
(token).should.be.type('string');
done();
}, function (err) {
done(err);
});
});
});
});
However, we can do even better. Consider what happens if an error gets thrown from within the rejection handler. Not likely, since you're not doing a whole lot in there - just calling done(err). But what if it does happen? Well, pretty much the same thing - the error will get silently swallowed up, the test will fail with a non-specific timeout error, and you'll be pulling out your hair again. Is there a way we can get that error to bubble up and get rethrown?
As a matter of fact, there is: Both Q and the promise library that you're using have an alternate handler called .done() (not to be confused with mocha's done callback). It's similar to .then(), but with a slightly different behavior around uncaught exceptions. From the documentation:
Promise#done(onFulfilled, onRejected)
The same semantics as .then except that it does not return a promise
and any exceptions are re-thrown so that they can be logged (crashing
the application in non-browser environments)
Perfect, that's exactly what we want. Just be sure to understand when you should use .then(), vs when you should use .done(). The Q API does a fantastic job of explaining (and the promise library you're using has similar behavior - I tested):
The Golden Rule of done vs. then usage is: either return your promise
to someone else, or if the chain ends with you, call done to terminate
it. Terminating with catch is not sufficient because the catch handler
may itself throw an error.
(Note: .catch() appears to be Q-specific, but it's pretty similar to the onRejected callback, which is the second parameter to .then().).
So with that in mind, just replace your last .then() with a .done(). When you use .done(), you can just omit the rejection handler and rely on the promise library to re-throw any unhandled expections, so you will get an error description and a stack trace. With the above in mind, your code now looks like:
describe('Domain Model', function(){
var options = { ... };
describe('Initialize',function(){
it('should be an string', function(done){
//request auth key
var promise = new Promise(function(resolve,reject){
// ...
});
promise.done(function(data){
var token = (JSON.parse(data))["access_token"];
console.log(token);
(token).should.be.type('string');
done();
});
});
});
});
Basically, ignoring the previous code sample, the only difference from the one before that is we're using .done() instead of .then().
Hopefully, this covers most of what you need to get started. There are other things you might want to consider, like potentially retrieving the auth key inside of a before() hook instead of an it() block (because I'm assuming the real thing you're testing is not the retrieval of the key - that's just a prerequisite to test the things you actually want to test, so a hook might be more appropriate - see here). I also question whether or not you should be connecting to an external system from within your tests at all, versus just stubbing it out (that depends on whether these are unit tests or integration tests). And I'm sure you can come up with a better assertion that just checking that token is a string, like using a regex to make sure it matches a pattern, or actually testing a request for a protected resource and making sure that it goes through. But I'll leave those questions for you to think about.

Related

JavaScript Promise: Reject handler vs catch [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
When is .then(success, fail) considered an antipattern for promises?
(7 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I have come across multiple applications where using catch is preferred over rejectHandler.
Eg:
Preferring
new Promise.then(resolveHandler).catch()
instead of
new Promise().then(resolveHandler, rejectHandler).catch()
Is there a particular reason for this??
I find
new Promise().then(resolveHandler, rejectHandler).catch()
to be more useful because
I can use rejectHandler to address designed/expected error scenario where Promise.reject is called.
I can use catch block to address unknown/unexpected programming/runtime errors that occur.
Does someone know any particular reason why rejectHandler is not used much?
P.S. I am aware of newer alternatives in ES6 but I just curious to know this.
Update: I KNOW HOW rejectHandler and catch works. The question is why do I see more people use only catch over both rejectHandler and catch? Is this a best practice or there is some advantage?
Update(Adding answer here): Found the answer I was looking for first hand.
The reason is not just because the error in reject is handled by catch it is mainly because of chaining. When we are chaining promise.then.then.then.then, having a resolve, reject pattern proves a bit tricky to chain it since you wouldn't want to implement a rejecthandler just to forward the rejectData up the chain. Using only promise/then/catch along with resolve/return/throw proves very useful in chaining N numbers of thenables.
#Bob-Fanger(accepted answer) addressed some part of this too.
Eg:
getData(id) {
return service.getData().then(dataList => {
const data = dataList.find(data => {
return data.id === id;
});
if (!data) {
// If I use Promise.reject here and use a reject handler in the parent then the parent might just be using the handler to route the error upwards in the chain
//If I use Promise.reject here and parent doesn't use reject handler then it goes to catch which can be just achieved using throw.
throw {
code: 404,
message: 'Data not present for this ID'
};
}
return configuration;
});
}
//somewhere up the chain
....getConfiguration()
.then(() => {
//successful promise execution
})
.catch(err => {
if (err.code) {
// checked exception
send(err);
} else {
//unchecked exception
send({
code: 500,
message: `Internal Server error: ${err}`
});
}
});
Using just these All I need to worry about is promise/then/catch along with resolve/return/throw anywhere in the chain.

The difference is that if an error occurs inside resolveHandler it won't be handled by the rejectHandler, that one only handles rejections in the original promise.
The rejectHandler is not used in combination with catch that much, because most of the time we only care about that something went wrong.
Creating only one errorhandler makes the code easier to reason about.
If a specific promise in the chain should handled differently that can be a reason to use a rejectHandler, but i'd probably write a catch().then().catch() in that case.

Neither is more useful than the other. Both the rejected handler and the catch callback are called when an error is thrown or a promise is rejected.
There is no "best practice" to use one over the other. You may see code use one or the other, but it's use will be based on what the code needs to achieve. The programmer may want to catch an error at different times in the chain and handle errors thrown at different times differently.
Hopefully the following will help explain what I mean:
somePromise
.then(
function() { /* code when somePromise has resolved */ },
function() {
/* code when somePromise has thrown or has been rejected.
An error thrown in the resolvedHandler
will NOT be handled by this callback */ }
);
somePromise
.then(
function() { /* code when somePromise has resolved */ }
)
.catch(
function() {
/* code when somePromise has thrown or has been rejected OR
when whatever has occurred in the .then
chained to somePromise has thrown or
the promise returned from it has been rejected */ }
);
Notice that in the first snippet, if the resolved handler throws then there is no rejected handler (or catch callback) that can catch the error. An error thrown in a resolved callback will not be caught by the rejectedHandler that is specified as the second argument to the .then

As stated in the post, provision of a resolve and reject handler in the same call to .then allows dealing with rejection of the previous promise separately from errors thrown within, or returning a rejected promise from, the success handler.
Because a rejection handler returning without throwing an error resumes the fufilled channel of a promise chain, a final catch handler will not be invoked if a previous rejection handler returns normally.
The question then devolves into use cases, cost of development and level of knowledge.
Use cases
In theory the two parameter form of then call could be used to retry an operation. But because hard coded promise chains are set up statically, retrying the operation is not simple. An easier way to retry might be to use an async function with try-catch statements surrounding await of a promise that may need to be retried as in this concept code:
async function() {
let retries = 3;
let failureErr = null;
while( retries--) {
try {
var result = await retryableOperationPromise()
return result;
}
catch( err) {
failureErr = err;
}
}
throw failureErr // no more retries
}
Other use cases may not be widespread.
Cost of development or commercial decisions.
If telling a user to retry later is acceptable it may be cheaper than doing anything about specific reasons for promise rejection. For example if I try to book a flight over midnight, when airlines put the prices up, I usually get told "an error occurred, try again later" because the price I was given at the start of booking will not be honored.
Knowledge (<opinion>)
I suspect that promise usage may often be based on example rather than in-depth knowledge of the subject. It is also possible program managers want to keep the code base as simple as possible for less experienced developers (probably a cost issue).
"Best practice" may not truly apply for making decisions on how to use promises if the usage is valid. Some developers and managers will avoid some forms of usage as a matter of principle, but not always based on technical merit.

httpBackend Mock AJAX ES6 Promise in $q.when

I'm trying to mock a response to a JSONP GET request which is made with a function that returns an ES6 promise which I've wrapped in $q.when(). The code itself works just fine, however, in the unit tests the request is not being caught by $httpBackend and goes through right to the actual URL. Thus when flush() is called I get an error stating Error: No pending request to flush !. The JSONP request is made via jQuery's $.getJSON() inside the ES6 promise so I opted to try and catch all outgoing requests by providing a regex instead of a hard-coded URL.
I've been searching all over trying to figure this out for a while now and still have yet to understand what's causing the call to go through. I feel as if the HTTP request in the ES6 promise is being made "outside of Angular" so $httpBackend doesn't know about it / isn't able to catch it, although that may not be the case if the call was being made inside of a $q promise from the get-go. Can anyone possibly tell me why this call is going through and why a simple timeout will work just fine? I've tried all combinations of $scope.$apply, $scope.$digest, and $httpBackend.flush() here, but to no avail.
Maybe some code will explain it better...
Controller
function homeController() {
...
var self = this;
self.getData = function getData() {
$q.when(user.getUserInformation()).then(function() {
self.username = user.username;
});
};
}
Unit Test
...
beforeEach(module('home'));
describe('Controller', function() {
var $httpBackend, scope, ctrl;
beforeEach(inject(function(_$httpBackend_, $rootScope, $componentController) {
$httpBackend = _$httpBackend_;
scope = $rootScope.$new(); // used to try and call $digest or $apply
// have also tried whenGET, when('GET', ..), etc...
$httpBackend.whenJSONP(/.*/)
.respond([
{
"user_information": {
"username": "TestUser",
}
}
]);
ctrl = $componentController("home");
}));
it("should add the username to the controller", function() {
ctrl.getData(); // make HTTP request
$httpBackend.flush(); // Error: No pending request to flush !
expect(ctrl.username).toBe("TestUser");
});
});
...
For some reason this works, however:
it("should add the username to the controller", function() {
ctrl.getData(); // make HTTP request
setTimeout(() => {
// don't even need to call flush, $digest, or $apply...?
expect(ctrl.username).toBe("TestUser");
});
});

Thanks to Graham's comment, I was brought further down a different rabbit hole due to my lack of understanding several things which I will summarize here in case someone ends up in the same situation...
I didn't fully understand how JSONP works. It doesn't rely on XmlHttpRequest at all (see here). Rather than trying to fiddle with mocking responses to these requests through JSONP I simply switched the "debug" flag on the code I was using which disabled JSONP so the calls were then being made via XHR objects (this would fail the same origin policy if real responses were needed from this external API).
Instead of trying to use jasmine-ajax, I simply set a spy on jQuery's getJSON and returned a mock response. This finally sent the mocked response to the ES6 promise, but for some reason the then function of the $q promise object which resulted from wrapping the ES6 promise wasn't being called (nor any other error-handling functions, even finally). I also tried calling $scope.$apply() pretty much anywhere in the off chance it would help, but to no avail.
Basic implementation (in unit test):
...
spyOn($, 'getJSON').and.callFake(function (url, success) {
success({"username": "TestUser"}); // send mock data
});
ctrl.getData(); // make GET request
...
Problem (in controller's source):
// user.getUserInformation() returns an ES6 promise
$q.when(user.getUserInformation()).then(function() {
// this was never being called / reached! (in the unit tests)
});
Ultimately I used #2's implementation to send the data and just wrapped the assertions in the unit test inside of a timeout with no time duration specified. I realize that's not optimal and hopefully isn't how it should be done, but after trying for many hours I've about reached my limit and given up. If anyone has any idea as to how to improve upon this, or why then isn't being called, I would honestly love to hear it.
Unit Test:
...
ctrl.getData(); // make GET request
setTimeout(() => {
expect(ctrl.username).toBe("TestUser"); // works!
});

How to reject (and properly use) Promises?

Short story:
Talking about Promises/A+, what is the proper way to reject a promise - throwing an error? But if I miss the catch - my whole app will blow!
How to use promisify and what are the benefits of it (maybe you'll need to read the longer version)?
Is .then(success, fail) really an anti-pattern and should I always use .then(success).catch(error)?
Longer version, described as real life problem (would love someone to read):
I have a library that uses Bluebird (A+ Promise implementation library), to fetch data from database (talking about Sequelize). Every query returns a result, but sometimes it's empty (tried to select something, but there wasn't any). The promise goes into the result function, because there is no reason for an error (not having results is not an error). Example:
Entity.find(1).then(function(result) {
// always ending here, despite result is {}
}).catch(function(error) {
// never ends here
});
I want to wrap this and check if the result is empty (can't check this everywhere in my code). I did this:
function findFirst() {
return Entity.find(1).then(function(result) {
if (result) { // add proper checks if needed
return result; // will invoke the success function
} else {
// I WANT TO INVOKE THE ERROR, HOW?! :)
}
}).catch(function(error) {
// never ends here
});
}
findFirst().then(function(result) {
// I HAVE a result
}).catch(function(error) {
// ERROR function - there's either sql error OR there is no result!
});
If you are still with me - I hope you will understand what's up. I want somehow to fire up the error function (where "ERROR function" is). The thing is - I don't know how. I've tried these things:
this.reject('reason'); // doesn't work, this is not a promise, Sequelize related
return new Error('reason'); // calls success function, with error argument
return false; // calls success function with false argument
throw new Error('reason'); // works, but if .catch is missing => BLOW!
As you can see by my comments (and per spec), throwing an error works well. But, there's a big but - if I miss the .catch statement, my whole app blows up.
Why I don't want this? Let's say I want to increment a counter in my database. I don't care about the result - I just make HTTP request.. So I can call incrementInDB(), which has the ability to return results (even for test reasons), so there is throw new Error if it failed. But since I don't care for response, sometimes I won't add .catch statement, right? But now - if I don't (on purpose or by fault) - I end up with your node app down.
I don't find this very nice. Is there any better way to work it out, or I just have to deal with it?
A friend of mine helped me out and I used a new promise to fix things up, like this:
function findFirst() {
var deferred = new Promise.pending(); // doesnt' matter if it's Bluebird or Q, just defer
Entity.find(1).then(function(result) {
if (result) { // add proper checks if needed
deferred.resolve(result);
} else {
deferred.reject('no result');
}
}).catch(function(error) {
deferred.reject('mysql error');
);
return deferred.promise; // return a promise, no matter of framework
}
Works like a charm! But I got into this: Promise Anti Patterns - wiki article written by Petka Antonov, creator of Bluebird (A+ implementation). It's explicitly said that this is wrong.
So my second question is - is it so? If yes - why? And what's the best way?
Thanks a lot for reading this, I hope someone will spent time to answer it for me :) I should add that I didn't want to depend too much on frameworks, so Sequelize and Bluebird are just things that I ended up working with. My problem is with Promises as a global, not with this particular frameworks.

Please ask only a single question per post :-)
Is .then(success, fail) really an anti-pattern and should I always use .then(success).catch(error)?
No. They just do different things, but once you know that you can choose the appropriate one.
How to use promisify and what are the benefits of it?
I think the Bluebird Promisification docs explain this pretty well - it's used to convert a callback api to one that returns promises.
Talking about Promises/A+, what is the proper way to reject a promise - throwing an error?
Yes, throwing an error is totally fine. Inside a then callback, you can throw and it will be caught automatically, resulting to the rejection of the result promise.
You can also use return Promise.reject(new Error(…));; both will have absolutely the same effect.
A friend of mine helped me out and I used a new promise to fix things up, like this: […]
No. You really shouldn't use that. Just use then and throw or return a rejected promise in there.
But if I miss the catch statement - my whole app will blow!
No, it won't. Notice that .catch() method is not a try catch statement - the error will already be caught where your then callback was invoked. It is then only passed to the catch callback as an argument, the .catch() call is not required to capture exceptions.
And when you miss .catch(), your app won't blow. All what happens is that you have a rejected promise laying around, the rest of your app won't be affected by this. You will get an unhandled rejection event, which can be dealt with globally.
Of course, that should not happen; every promise chain (not every promise instance) should be ended with a .catch() that handles errors appropriately. But you definitely don't need .catch() in every helper function, when it returns a promise to somewhere else then errors will usually be handled by the caller.

Talking about Promises/A+, what is the proper way to reject a promise - throwing an error? But if I miss the catch - my whole app will blow!
And if you use return codes to signal errors instead of exceptions, missing the check will cause subtle bugs and erratic behavior. Forgetting to handle errors is a bug, but having your app blow up in such an unfortunate case is more often better than letting it continue in corrupted state.
Debugging forgotten error code check that is only apparent by the application behaving weirdly at some unrelated-to-the-source-of-error place is easily many orders of magnitude more expensive than debugging a forgotten catch because you have the error message, source of error and stack trace. So if you want productivity in typical application development scenario, exceptions win by a pretty huge margin.
.then(success, fail)
This is usually signal that you are using promises as glorified callbacks where the callbacks are simply passed separately. This is obviously an anti-pattern as you will not get any benefits from using promises in this way. If that's not the case, even then you are just making your code slightly less readable compared to using .catch(), similar to how method(true, true, false) is much less readable than method({option1: true, option2: true, option3: false}).
How to use promisify and what are the benefits of it (maybe you'll need to read the longer version)?
Most modules only expose a callback interface, promisify turns a callback interface automatically into a promise interface. If you are writing such code manually (using deferred or new Promise), you are wasting your time.
So my second question is - is it so? If yes - why? And what's the best way?
The best way is to chain the promise:
function findFirst() {
return Entity.find(1).tap(function(result) {
if (!result) throw new Error("no result");
});
}
It's better because it's simpler, shorter, more readable and far less error-prone way to do exactly the same thing.

Node.js Abort chain in Q in different point

I have a pretty long chain of check in Q, and I would to interrupt it when an error rise:
I have looked to How to abort a failing Q promise in Node.JS and other answers on SO, but it seems impossible to me, that can't exist nothing else.
Example
`
Q().then(function(){
return Q.ninvoke(myObject, 'save');
}).fail(functon(err){ // if error
res.status(400).send(err.message);// like duplicate key
}).then(function(){
add object another object to db referenced to myObject
}).fail(functon(err){ // if error
res.status(400).send(err.message);// like connection error
}).then(function(){
do somethinng else
}).done()
`
Obviously, if it can't save the first object, I would not go on through other steps, but I would exit without throwing error and blocking the execution of the server without sending the message to the client.
I tried to add two function to done(OK, REJECTED), but only OK() is called.
I would like to avoid chunking the code in 3 different functions if possible.

As far as I can gather, you don't need to do anything particularly tricky, just understand how success and failure propagate through a .then chain, then exploit this knowledge to get the behaviour you desire.
the chain will continue down the "success" path as long as you keep on having success
the chain will continue down the "fail" path as long as you keep on having failure
if a "success" function throws an error or returns a rejected promise, then the chain will continue down the "fail" path
if a "fail" function returns a value or a fulfilled promise, then the chain will continue down the "success" path.
This behaviour is at the heart of the Promises/A+ standard.
If you were to write your chain with a single, terminal .fail, then (if I understand correctly) you would get the behaviour you seek.
Q().then(function () {
return Q.ninvoke(myObject, 'save');
}).then(function () {
add object another object to db referenced to myObject
}).then(function () {
do somethinng else
}).fail(functon (err) {
res.status(400).send(err.message);
});
Here, failure at any point in the .then chain will cause the propageted promise to drop straight through the rest of the .thens and be caught by the terminal .fail.
This has the advantage over the code in the question, which has multiple interwoven .fails. That pattern can be made to work but you need to introduce a mechanism to suppress multiple "fail" behaviour once the failure has been handled. In unusual circumstances that might be appropriate, but in general it would be regarded as messy.
The only other thing you might need in the fail handler is to distiguish between the different types of failure and act accordingly. That's pretty trivial as the formal variable err can be tested, eg in a switch-case structure. You appear not to need such a test as the action on failure is the same in all cases.

how avoid nodejs crashes [duplicate]

I just started trying out node.js a few days ago. I've realized that the Node is terminated whenever I have an unhandled exception in my program. This is different than the normal server container that I have been exposed to where only the Worker Thread dies when unhandled exceptions occur and the container would still be able to receive the request. This raises a few questions:
Is process.on('uncaughtException') the only effective way to guard against it?
Will process.on('uncaughtException') catch the unhandled exception during execution of asynchronous processes as well?
Is there a module that is already built (such as sending email or writing to a file) that I could leverage in the case of uncaught exceptions?
I would appreciate any pointer/article that would show me the common best practices for handling uncaught exceptions in node.js

Update: Joyent now has their own guide. The following information is more of a summary:
Safely "throwing" errors
Ideally we'd like to avoid uncaught errors as much as possible, as such, instead of literally throwing the error, we can instead safely "throw" the error using one of the following methods depending on our code architecture:
For synchronous code, if an error happens, return the error:
// Define divider as a syncrhonous function
var divideSync = function(x,y) {
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by returning it
return new Error("Can't divide by zero")
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
return x/y
}
}
// Divide 4/2
var result = divideSync(4,2)
// did an error occur?
if ( result instanceof Error ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/2=err', result)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/2='+result)
}
// Divide 4/0
result = divideSync(4,0)
// did an error occur?
if ( result instanceof Error ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/0=err', result)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/0='+result)
}
For callback-based (ie. asynchronous) code, the first argument of the callback is err, if an error happens err is the error, if an error doesn't happen then err is null. Any other arguments follow the err argument:
var divide = function(x,y,next) {
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by calling the completion callback
// with the first argument being the error
next(new Error("Can't divide by zero"))
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
next(null, x/y)
}
}
divide(4,2,function(err,result){
// did an error occur?
if ( err ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/2=err', err)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/2='+result)
}
})
divide(4,0,function(err,result){
// did an error occur?
if ( err ) {
// handle the error safely
console.log('4/0=err', err)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
console.log('4/0='+result)
}
})
For eventful code, where the error may happen anywhere, instead of throwing the error, fire the error event instead:
// Definite our Divider Event Emitter
var events = require('events')
var Divider = function(){
events.EventEmitter.call(this)
}
require('util').inherits(Divider, events.EventEmitter)
// Add the divide function
Divider.prototype.divide = function(x,y){
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by emitting it
var err = new Error("Can't divide by zero")
this.emit('error', err)
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
this.emit('divided', x, y, x/y)
}
// Chain
return this;
}
// Create our divider and listen for errors
var divider = new Divider()
divider.on('error', function(err){
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
})
divider.on('divided', function(x,y,result){
console.log(x+'/'+y+'='+result)
})
// Divide
divider.divide(4,2).divide(4,0)
Safely "catching" errors
Sometimes though, there may still be code that throws an error somewhere which can lead to an uncaught exception and a potential crash of our application if we don't catch it safely. Depending on our code architecture we can use one of the following methods to catch it:
When we know where the error is occurring, we can wrap that section in a node.js domain
var d = require('domain').create()
d.on('error', function(err){
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
})
// catch the uncaught errors in this asynchronous or synchronous code block
d.run(function(){
// the asynchronous or synchronous code that we want to catch thrown errors on
var err = new Error('example')
throw err
})
If we know where the error is occurring is synchronous code, and for whatever reason can't use domains (perhaps old version of node), we can use the try catch statement:
// catch the uncaught errors in this synchronous code block
// try catch statements only work on synchronous code
try {
// the synchronous code that we want to catch thrown errors on
var err = new Error('example')
throw err
} catch (err) {
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
}
However, be careful not to use try...catch in asynchronous code, as an asynchronously thrown error will not be caught:
try {
setTimeout(function(){
var err = new Error('example')
throw err
}, 1000)
}
catch (err) {
// Example error won't be caught here... crashing our app
// hence the need for domains
}
If you do want to work with try..catch in conjunction with asynchronous code, when running Node 7.4 or higher you can use async/await natively to write your asynchronous functions.
Another thing to be careful about with try...catch is the risk of wrapping your completion callback inside the try statement like so:
var divide = function(x,y,next) {
// if error condition?
if ( y === 0 ) {
// "throw" the error safely by calling the completion callback
// with the first argument being the error
next(new Error("Can't divide by zero"))
}
else {
// no error occured, continue on
next(null, x/y)
}
}
var continueElsewhere = function(err, result){
throw new Error('elsewhere has failed')
}
try {
divide(4, 2, continueElsewhere)
// ^ the execution of divide, and the execution of
// continueElsewhere will be inside the try statement
}
catch (err) {
console.log(err.stack)
// ^ will output the "unexpected" result of: elsewhere has failed
}
This gotcha is very easy to do as your code becomes more complex. As such, it is best to either use domains or to return errors to avoid (1) uncaught exceptions in asynchronous code (2) the try catch catching execution that you don't want it to. In languages that allow for proper threading instead of JavaScript's asynchronous event-machine style, this is less of an issue.
Finally, in the case where an uncaught error happens in a place that wasn't wrapped in a domain or a try catch statement, we can make our application not crash by using the uncaughtException listener (however doing so can put the application in an unknown state):
// catch the uncaught errors that weren't wrapped in a domain or try catch statement
// do not use this in modules, but only in applications, as otherwise we could have multiple of these bound
process.on('uncaughtException', function(err) {
// handle the error safely
console.log(err)
})
// the asynchronous or synchronous code that emits the otherwise uncaught error
var err = new Error('example')
throw err

Following is a summarization and curation from many different sources on this topic including code example and quotes from selected blog posts. The complete list of best practices can be found here
Best practices of Node.JS error handling
Number1: Use promises for async error handling
TL;DR: Handling async errors in callback style is probably the fastest way to hell (a.k.a the pyramid of doom). The best gift you can give to your code is using instead a reputable promise library which provides much compact and familiar code syntax like try-catch
Otherwise: Node.JS callback style, function(err, response), is a promising way to un-maintainable code due to the mix of error handling with casual code, excessive nesting and awkward coding patterns
Code example - good
doWork()
.then(doWork)
.then(doError)
.then(doWork)
.catch(errorHandler)
.then(verify);
code example anti pattern – callback style error handling
getData(someParameter, function(err, result){
if(err != null)
//do something like calling the given callback function and pass the error
getMoreData(a, function(err, result){
if(err != null)
//do something like calling the given callback function and pass the error
getMoreData(b, function(c){
getMoreData(d, function(e){
...
});
});
});
});
});
Blog quote: "We have a problem with promises"
(From the blog pouchdb, ranked 11 for the keywords "Node Promises")
"…And in fact, callbacks do something even more sinister: they deprive us of the stack, which is something we usually take for granted in programming languages. Writing code without a stack is a lot like driving a car without a brake pedal: you don’t realize how badly you need it, until you reach for it and it’s not there. The whole point of promises is to give us back the language fundamentals we lost when we went async: return, throw, and the stack. But you have to know how to use promises correctly in order to take advantage of them."
Number2: Use only the built-in Error object
TL;DR: It pretty common to see code that throws errors as string or as a custom type – this complicates the error handling logic and the interoperability between modules. Whether you reject a promise, throw exception or emit error – using Node.JS built-in Error object increases uniformity and prevents loss of error information
Otherwise: When executing some module, being uncertain which type of errors come in return – makes it much harder to reason about the coming exception and handle it. Even worth, using custom types to describe errors might lead to loss of critical error information like the stack trace!
Code example - doing it right
//throwing an Error from typical function, whether sync or async
if(!productToAdd)
throw new Error("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
//'throwing' an Error from EventEmitter
const myEmitter = new MyEmitter();
myEmitter.emit('error', new Error('whoops!'));
//'throwing' an Error from a Promise
return new promise(function (resolve, reject) {
DAL.getProduct(productToAdd.id).then((existingProduct) =>{
if(existingProduct != null)
return reject(new Error("Why fooling us and trying to add an existing product?"));
code example anti pattern
//throwing a String lacks any stack trace information and other important properties
if(!productToAdd)
throw ("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
Blog quote: "A string is not an error"
(From the blog devthought, ranked 6 for the keywords “Node.JS error object”)
"…passing a string instead of an error results in reduced interoperability between modules. It breaks contracts with APIs that might be performing instanceof Error checks, or that want to know more about the error. Error objects, as we’ll see, have very interesting properties in modern JavaScript engines besides holding the message passed to the constructor.."
Number3: Distinguish operational vs programmer errors
TL;DR: Operations errors (e.g. API received an invalid input) refer to known cases where the error impact is fully understood and can be handled thoughtfully. On the other hand, programmer error (e.g. trying to read undefined variable) refers to unknown code failures that dictate to gracefully restart the application
Otherwise: You may always restart the application when an error appear, but why letting ~5000 online users down because of a minor and predicted error (operational error)? the opposite is also not ideal – keeping the application up when unknown issue (programmer error) occurred might lead unpredicted behavior. Differentiating the two allows acting tactfully and applying a balanced approach based on the given context
Code example - doing it right
//throwing an Error from typical function, whether sync or async
if(!productToAdd)
throw new Error("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
//'throwing' an Error from EventEmitter
const myEmitter = new MyEmitter();
myEmitter.emit('error', new Error('whoops!'));
//'throwing' an Error from a Promise
return new promise(function (resolve, reject) {
DAL.getProduct(productToAdd.id).then((existingProduct) =>{
if(existingProduct != null)
return reject(new Error("Why fooling us and trying to add an existing product?"));
code example - marking an error as operational (trusted)
//marking an error object as operational
var myError = new Error("How can I add new product when no value provided?");
myError.isOperational = true;
//or if you're using some centralized error factory (see other examples at the bullet "Use only the built-in Error object")
function appError(commonType, description, isOperational) {
Error.call(this);
Error.captureStackTrace(this);
this.commonType = commonType;
this.description = description;
this.isOperational = isOperational;
};
throw new appError(errorManagement.commonErrors.InvalidInput, "Describe here what happened", true);
//error handling code within middleware
process.on('uncaughtException', function(error) {
if(!error.isOperational)
process.exit(1);
});
Blog Quote: "Otherwise you risk the state"
(From the blog debugable, ranked 3 for the keywords "Node.JS uncaught exception")
"…By the very nature of how throw works in JavaScript, there is almost never any way to safely “pick up where you left off”, without leaking references, or creating some other sort of undefined brittle state. The safest way to respond to a thrown error is to shut down the process. Of course, in a normal web server, you might have many connections open, and it is not reasonable to abruptly shut those down because an error was triggered by someone else. The better approach is to send an error response to the request that triggered the error, while letting the others finish in their normal time, and stop listening for new requests in that worker"
Number4: Handle errors centrally, through but not within middleware
TL;DR: Error handling logic such as mail to admin and logging should be encapsulated in a dedicated and centralized object that all end-points (e.g. Express middleware, cron jobs, unit-testing) call when an error comes in.
Otherwise: Not handling errors within a single place will lead to code duplication and probably to errors that are handled improperly
Code example - a typical error flow
//DAL layer, we don't handle errors here
DB.addDocument(newCustomer, (error, result) => {
if (error)
throw new Error("Great error explanation comes here", other useful parameters)
});
//API route code, we catch both sync and async errors and forward to the middleware
try {
customerService.addNew(req.body).then(function (result) {
res.status(200).json(result);
}).catch((error) => {
next(error)
});
}
catch (error) {
next(error);
}
//Error handling middleware, we delegate the handling to the centrzlied error handler
app.use(function (err, req, res, next) {
errorHandler.handleError(err).then((isOperationalError) => {
if (!isOperationalError)
next(err);
});
});
Blog quote: "Sometimes lower levels can’t do anything useful except propagate the error to their caller"
(From the blog Joyent, ranked 1 for the keywords “Node.JS error handling”)
"…You may end up handling the same error at several levels of the stack. This happens when lower levels can’t do anything useful except propagate the error to their caller, which propagates the error to its caller, and so on. Often, only the top-level caller knows what the appropriate response is, whether that’s to retry the operation, report an error to the user, or something else. But that doesn’t mean you should try to report all errors to a single top-level callback, because that callback itself can’t know in what context the error occurred"
Number5: Document API errors using Swagger
TL;DR: Let your API callers know which errors might come in return so they can handle these thoughtfully without crashing. This is usually done with REST API documentation frameworks like Swagger
Otherwise: An API client might decide to crash and restart only because he received back an error he couldn’t understand. Note: the caller of your API might be you (very typical in a microservices environment)
Blog quote: "You have to tell your callers what errors can happen"
(From the blog Joyent, ranked 1 for the keywords “Node.JS logging”)
…We’ve talked about how to handle errors, but when you’re writing a new function, how do you deliver errors to the code that called your function? …If you don’t know what errors can happen or don’t know what they mean, then your program cannot be correct except by accident. So if you’re writing a new function, you have to tell your callers what errors can happen and what they mea
Number6: Shut the process gracefully when a stranger comes to town
TL;DR: When an unknown error occurs (a developer error, see best practice number #3)- there is uncertainty about the application healthiness. A common practice suggests restarting the process carefully using a ‘restarter’ tool like Forever and PM2
Otherwise: When an unfamiliar exception is caught, some object might be in a faulty state (e.g an event emitter which is used globally and not firing events anymore due to some internal failure) and all future requests might fail or behave crazily
Code example - deciding whether to crash
//deciding whether to crash when an uncaught exception arrives
//Assuming developers mark known operational errors with error.isOperational=true, read best practice #3
process.on('uncaughtException', function(error) {
errorManagement.handler.handleError(error);
if(!errorManagement.handler.isTrustedError(error))
process.exit(1)
});
//centralized error handler encapsulates error-handling related logic
function errorHandler(){
this.handleError = function (error) {
return logger.logError(err).then(sendMailToAdminIfCritical).then(saveInOpsQueueIfCritical).then(determineIfOperationalError);
}
this.isTrustedError = function(error)
{
return error.isOperational;
}
Blog quote: "There are three schools of thoughts on error handling"
(From the blog jsrecipes)
…There are primarily three schools of thoughts on error handling: 1. Let the application crash and restart it. 2. Handle all possible errors and never crash. 3. Balanced approach between the two
Number7: Use a mature logger to increase errors visibility
TL;DR: A set of mature logging tools like Winston, Bunyan or Log4J, will speed-up error discovery and understanding. So forget about console.log.
Otherwise: Skimming through console.logs or manually through messy text file without querying tools or a decent log viewer might keep you busy at work until late
Code example - Winston logger in action
//your centralized logger object
var logger = new winston.Logger({
level: 'info',
transports: [
new (winston.transports.Console)(),
new (winston.transports.File)({ filename: 'somefile.log' })
]
});
//custom code somewhere using the logger
logger.log('info', 'Test Log Message with some parameter %s', 'some parameter', { anything: 'This is metadata' });
Blog quote: "Lets identify a few requirements (for a logger):"
(From the blog strongblog)
…Lets identify a few requirements (for a logger):
1. Time stamp each log line. This one is pretty self explanatory – you should be able to tell when each log entry occured.
2. Logging format should be easily digestible by humans as well as machines.
3. Allows for multiple configurable destination streams. For example, you might be writing trace logs to one file but when an error is encountered, write to the same file, then into error file and send an email at the same time…
Number8: Discover errors and downtime using APM products
TL;DR: Monitoring and performance products (a.k.a APM) proactively gauge your codebase or API so they can auto-magically highlight errors, crashes and slow parts that you were missing
Otherwise: You might spend great effort on measuring API performance and downtimes, probably you’ll never be aware which are your slowest code parts under real world scenario and how these affects the UX
Blog quote: "APM products segments"
(From the blog Yoni Goldberg)
"…APM products constitutes 3 major segments:1. Website or API monitoring – external services that constantly monitor uptime and performance via HTTP requests. Can be setup in few minutes. Following are few selected contenders: Pingdom, Uptime Robot, and New Relic
2. Code instrumentation – products family which require to embed an agent within the application to benefit feature slow code detection, exceptions statistics, performance monitoring and many more. Following are few selected contenders: New Relic, App Dynamics
3. Operational intelligence dashboard – these line of products are focused on facilitating the ops team with metrics and curated content that helps to easily stay on top of application performance. This is usually involves aggregating multiple sources of information (application logs, DB logs, servers log, etc) and upfront dashboard design work. Following are few selected contenders: Datadog, Splunk"
The above is a shortened version - see here more best practices and examples

You can catch uncaught exceptions, but it's of limited use. See http://debuggable.com/posts/node-js-dealing-with-uncaught-exceptions:4c933d54-1428-443c-928d-4e1ecbdd56cb
monit, forever or upstart can be used to restart node process when it crashes. A graceful shutdown is best you can hope for (e.g. save all in-memory data in uncaught exception handler).

nodejs domains is the most up to date way of handling errors in nodejs. Domains can capture both error/other events as well as traditionally thrown objects. Domains also provide functionality for handling callbacks with an error passed as the first argument via the intercept method.
As with normal try/catch-style error handling, is is usually best to throw errors when they occur, and block out areas where you want to isolate errors from affecting the rest of the code. The way to "block out" these areas are to call domain.run with a function as a block of isolated code.
In synchronous code, the above is enough - when an error happens you either let it be thrown through, or you catch it and handle there, reverting any data you need to revert.
try {
//something
} catch(e) {
// handle data reversion
// probably log too
}
When the error happens in an asynchronous callback, you either need to be able to fully handle the rollback of data (shared state, external data like databases, etc). OR you have to set something to indicate that an exception has happened - where ever you care about that flag, you have to wait for the callback to complete.
var err = null;
var d = require('domain').create();
d.on('error', function(e) {
err = e;
// any additional error handling
}
d.run(function() { Fiber(function() {
// do stuff
var future = somethingAsynchronous();
// more stuff
future.wait(); // here we care about the error
if(err != null) {
// handle data reversion
// probably log too
}
})});
Some of that above code is ugly, but you can create patterns for yourself to make it prettier, eg:
var specialDomain = specialDomain(function() {
// do stuff
var future = somethingAsynchronous();
// more stuff
future.wait(); // here we care about the error
if(specialDomain.error()) {
// handle data reversion
// probably log too
}
}, function() { // "catch"
// any additional error handling
});
UPDATE (2013-09):
Above, I use a future that implies fibers semantics, which allow you to wait on futures in-line. This actually allows you to use traditional try-catch blocks for everything - which I find to be the best way to go. However, you can't always do this (ie in the browser)...
There are also futures that don't require fibers semantics (which then work with normal, browsery JavaScript). These can be called futures, promises, or deferreds (I'll just refer to futures from here on). Plain-old-JavaScript futures libraries allow errors to be propagated between futures. Only some of these libraries allow any thrown future to be correctly handled, so beware.
An example:
returnsAFuture().then(function() {
console.log('1')
return doSomething() // also returns a future
}).then(function() {
console.log('2')
throw Error("oops an error was thrown")
}).then(function() {
console.log('3')
}).catch(function(exception) {
console.log('handler')
// handle the exception
}).done()
This mimics a normal try-catch, even though the pieces are asynchronous. It would print:
1
2
handler
Note that it doesn't print '3' because an exception was thrown that interrupts that flow.
Take a look at bluebird promises:
https://github.com/petkaantonov/bluebird
Note that I haven't found many other libraries other than these that properly handle thrown exceptions. jQuery's deferred, for example, don't - the "fail" handler would never get the exception thrown an a 'then' handler, which in my opinion is a deal breaker.

I wrote about this recently at http://snmaynard.com/2012/12/21/node-error-handling/. A new feature of node in version 0.8 is domains and allow you to combine all the forms of error handling into one easier manage form. You can read about them in my post.
You can also use something like Bugsnag to track your uncaught exceptions and be notified via email, chatroom or have a ticket created for an uncaught exception (I am the co-founder of Bugsnag).

One instance where using a try-catch might be appropriate is when using a forEach loop. It is synchronous but at the same time you cannot just use a return statement in the inner scope. Instead a try and catch approach can be used to return an Error object in the appropriate scope. Consider:
function processArray() {
try {
[1, 2, 3].forEach(function() { throw new Error('exception'); });
} catch (e) {
return e;
}
}
It is a combination of the approaches described by #balupton above.

I would just like to add that Step.js library helps you handle exceptions by always passing it to the next step function. Therefore you can have as a last step a function that check for any errors in any of the previous steps. This approach can greatly simplify your error handling.
Below is a quote from the github page:
any exceptions thrown are caught and passed as the first argument to
the next function. As long as you don't nest callback functions inline
your main functions this prevents there from ever being any uncaught
exceptions. This is very important for long running node.JS servers
since a single uncaught exception can bring the whole server down.
Furthermore, you can use Step to control execution of scripts to have a clean up section as the last step. For example if you want to write a build script in Node and report how long it took to write, the last step can do that (rather than trying to dig out the last callback).

Catching errors has been very well discussed here, but it's worth remembering to log the errors out somewhere so you can view them and fix stuff up.
​Bunyan is a popular logging framework for NodeJS - it supporst writing out to a bunch of different output places which makes it useful for local debugging, as long as you avoid console.log.
​
In your domain's error handler you could spit the error out to a log file.
var log = bunyan.createLogger({
name: 'myapp',
streams: [
{
level: 'error',
path: '/var/tmp/myapp-error.log' // log ERROR to this file
}
]
});
This can get time consuming if you have lots of errors and/or servers to check, so it could be worth looking into a tool like Raygun (disclaimer, I work at Raygun) to group errors together - or use them both together.
​
If you decided to use Raygun as a tool, it's pretty easy to setup too
var raygunClient = new raygun.Client().init({ apiKey: 'your API key' });
raygunClient.send(theError);
​
Crossed with using a tool like PM2 or forever, your app should be able to crash, log out what happened and reboot without any major issues.

After reading this post some time ago I was wondering if it was safe to use domains for exception handling on an api / function level. I wanted to use them to simplify exception handling code in each async function I wrote. My concern was that using a new domain for each function would introduce significant overhead. My homework seems to indicate that there is minimal overhead and that performance is actually better with domains than with try catch in some situations.
http://www.lighthouselogic.com/#/using-a-new-domain-for-each-async-function-in-node/

If you want use Services in Ubuntu(Upstart): Node as a service in Ubuntu 11.04 with upstart, monit and forever.js

getCountryRegionData: (countryName, stateName) => {
let countryData, stateData
try {
countryData = countries.find(
country => country.countryName === countryName
)
} catch (error) {
console.log(error.message)
return error.message
}
try {
stateData = countryData.regions.find(state => state.name === stateName)
} catch (error) {
console.log(error.message)
return error.message
}
return {
countryName: countryData.countryName,
countryCode: countryData.countryShortCode,
stateName: stateData.name,
stateCode: stateData.shortCode,
}
},

Categories